In one of my recent "debates" with my fundie xtian coworkers, they had mentioned the "remnants" of something on the top of Mt. Arrarat and said thats where the arc landed.

How does one refute the flood arguments and arc found arguments that they will be able to understand it?

Tags: Arc, arguments, debate, flood, thiest

Views: 78

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If we can put a man on the moon, can plumb the depths of the deepest ocean trenches, pump oil up from 32,000 feet under the ocean... how is it we cant recover these alleged ark remnants? This foolishness hass been going of for years, these "sightings" , hoaxes, and stories.

You don't "refute" their statements, you ask for the evidence..hard evidence. Not photos of woulda-coulda-shoulda- boats, not shadows, not rock outcroppings that look like a boat. Ive already seen those, plus pictures of the True Bigfoot and movies of the alien autopsy. Please. They have no "evidence."

Itslike trying to refute the "screams from hell eminating from a drill hole in Siberia" story that appeared in tabloid rags 20 yrs ago, admitted as a made up story.. yet the extreme fundies still refer to it as though it is fact. They want it to be so...thus it is.
There is no refuting stupidity based on faith. Its "Gimme the evidence, lets submit it to scientific testing, or go fuck yer self." is my refutation.

Ask them how BILLIONS of species could fit into one arc with enough people to re-populate the world. Can anyone say lions, tigers and bears, oh my?
There is not enough water on earth for a global flood.
guys...youre forgetting.. those challenges are answered by: "With God all things are possible." thus it nets nothing.

Only evidence, physical, observable, scientifically evidence refutes mysticism and faith. Why play into their hands if you dont have to: SHOW ME THE FUCKING WOOD REMAINS SO WE CAN TEST IT'S ORIGIN, AGE, AND NATURAL OR MANSHAPED PROPERTIES.
haha! I may have to use the "Bag of Holding" rebuttal next time. :D
You guys, you're so silly. I have all the answers. Noah was, in fact, a Time Lord, and the ark was a TARDIS. This addresses ALL of the arguments against Noah's Ark. You're welcome!
The shortest path - ask for a reasonable accounting for "rules of evidence" for biblical remnants. Take those rules and ask to introduce your own evidence. Why include the remains of the ark but exclude archeological digs (visible in principal within the decade, on Google earth) around Sumerian grain silos that predate Adam and Eve and their special garden? Can we apply these rules to include bone flutes from 35,000 years ago? How about stone axes from Homo Habilis?

Then point out that the "gaps in the biblical record" prevent you from accepting the Theory of Bible. Ask why the remains of a crocoduck was not next to the remnants of the ark. Try to find out if Ray Comfort's modern day banana was on the ark.

A true fundamentalist must reject all physical evidence and instead rely on faith alone. Point this out until they kick you in the nads.


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Philip Jarrett 1 hour ago. 172 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out

Advertise with

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service